First, I always consider the source. PBS gets funded partially by forced wealth redistribution. Naturally they have a perspective not shared by people who work for private industry and don't take from the system.

Quote:

ANDREW SMITHERS: The change in the way company managements are remunerated has been dramatic in this century. Salaries have ceased to be the main source of income to senior management, with bonuses and options taking over. There has been major change in management incentives and it should not cause surprise, though it evidently has to most economists, that management behavior has changed. The current incentives discourage investment and encourage high profit margins.

This is dangerous for companies' long-term prospects as it increases their risk of losing market share and reduces their ability to reduce costs. It is very damaging for the economy, but it maximizes the income of managements. Senior management positions change frequently, so if management wish to get rich, they have to get rich quickly. I am not alone in this diagnosis. A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York comes to the same conclusion from a theoretical analysis as I have come from data analysis.

I do not see a trend in this plot.

Rather what I see is economic cycles. One nasty one that makes management look "evil" happened right in the midst of WWII. What's up with that? When you think about it, it has a lot to do with how these statistics were put together, and how the economy can change on a dime.

Markets self-correct. If a company isn't investing in its future, then they will lose out to other companies that do. Ultimately the survival of a company isn't about whether this or that part of the employee population is getting a piece of the pie, but rather whether the activity within the company is sustainable.

Meanwhile... that which constitutes "labor" is a dieing paradigm. Much of the work done in my company is efficiently run by people like yours truly who operate servers that do my work. Much money is put into the hardware and software, and my specialized work is force-multiplied by technology. Hence I do not work in a labor intensive business. That which constitutes profit - which is only a few percent of total revenue anyway - is then proportionally fairly high with respect to "labor" costs.

For the record, companies do *not* exist to employ people. They exist to turn a profit for the owners and/or shareholders. Employment is a fringe benefit of said economic activity. Requiring companies to put more revenue into labor (to what end???) and less towards profit is anathema to the raison d'etre of the company.

Also... the uncertain economic market is causing companies not to hire. Until the federal government stops being stupid, companies will continue not to hire.

One thing though is that it frames the discussion mainly in terms of "share" instead of actual wages or how much wages have increased.

A lot of Lefties use that approach--that way they don't have to discuss actual wages going up (up until the crisis) . Plus it gives tham a chance to wail about how much more the CEO makes than the dude in the mailroom.

The question I always want to ask is why is it looked at as warrented for union workers to get the best deal they possibly can--regardless of the cost to everyone else that buys their product. BUT its somehow wrong when the CEO etc. does the same thing.

I see no moral or ethical difference between one dude getting the best possible deal for themselves and another dude doing the same.......

I notice that the union workers that got fired last year for drinking and smoking pot on their lunch breaks---then going back to making cars that the rest of DRIVE--put our kids in etc. Are likely to get their jobs back--with possible back pay because their bosses failed to follow proper union precedure when they fired them.

1-According to reports Al Gore tried like heck to get the sale to close in December so as to avoid the higher taxs coming down the pike.

Generally I would go "ok--good business" however, just recently Mr. Gore was taped expounding on his belief that those that have the resources should......wait for it....wait for it... "pay their fair share."

Unless of course you stand to pocket a personal 100 million dollars on the deal.

You might say to yourself--"hey, its a 100 million dollars" but lets not forget that Gore ALREADY has a reported 100 million.

Which brings me to point #2--Gore made his FIRST 100 million selling a GREEN agenda and warning everyone about the evils of fossil fuels.

2-What does Qatar produce--huge, vast amounts of OIL!--ya know the evil fossil fuel that Gore has been running around telling everyone that its killing the planet.

But hey, what is killing the planet compared to makeing another 100 million?

Funny--or it would be if it were not so serious--but the Left so often accuses the Right of being hypocrites they NEVER seem to be willing or able to address their own shortcomings.

Al Gore may be a (gigantic) hypocrite, but he's not a stupid hypocrite.It's not so much that the left is inable to address its own shortcomings... it's that the Left acknowledges that it is actively engaged in a culture war. All's fair in love and war, so they say...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum